[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 18, 1995
.1102 
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, I'd like to bring this meeting to order.
Today we have the privilege and the honour of hearing from Jocelyne Bourgon, Clerk of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Secretary to the Cabinet. This is not the first time that Ms Bourgon has appeared before our committee. It's nice to have her back.
I understand that she'll have some opening remarks, and then we can move to our usual rounds of questioning.
[Translation]
Ms Jocelyne Bourgon (Clerk of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought it might be useful for me to add a few comments on the outlook document which has been distributed to members.
[English]
We're all used to the estimates document. We've been using that document for many years. This is the first year that every department and organization has been asked to use an Outlook document. So we're all learning. The purpose is to allow an exchange with parliamentarians, not so much year over year, but over more than one year, over a period of time.
Let me add some comments, because they could be helpful in our exchange and they could help you to guide us in some of the issues we're dealing with.
The Privy Council Office, like any other department, went through a program review. The program review was a key feature of what every department was asked to do in 1994-95, leading to the preparation of the budget.
[Translation]
Thus, every department and organization was required to rethink its role and responsibilities, as well as the services it was providing and the way in which those services were being provided. In fact, it's not a bad idea to ask organizations from time to time to review the basis for their operations.
[English]
Since we are an organization without much money per se or grants and contributions, our program review was based on our role and responsibility and the best way of using our human resources. If I look at the PCO activity per se, a very large proportion of our expenditures is human resource based.
In reviewing our activities, we found that reforms the government had introduced had consequences for the way we were doing business and that we could rethink our approach to serve the government better and to serve the systems that were emerging better.
One of the changes worth noting is in the approach in the management of the cabinet system. For an organization like ours, the role of cabinet is very central.
.1105
You know, Mr. Chairman, the cabinet system has been streamlined and the number of cabinet committees has been reduced. In a way that enhances the collective role of ministers in working together and making decisions. Instead of having a separate committee dealing with priorities, the cabinet as a whole is dealing with these questions now.
Combined with that is the fact that in 1994-95 we saw the introduction of what I would describe as a strategic planning cycle. Ministers are getting together every three or four months for the purpose of setting priorities, setting directions, reviewing performance, and bringing about corrections to the course of action.
[Translation]
Thus, we, at the Privy Council, have had to rethink some elements of our role, and we have had to recognize the need, among other things, to consolidate our secretariats. This has lead to fairly significant savings, and it has also forced us to take a more strategic approach in order to provide appropriate support for the government's approach. You will find this is reflected in our Outlook document, in terms of changes we wish to bring about in the years to come.
[English]
As I said, the Outlook document does not deal with one year. It deals with where you are trying to be in a couple of years from now. So that's one area of change.
[Translation]
The other change I would like to mention is related to the new budget cycle.
[English]
The budget cycle now in place is very different from the one that we've been used to. It is a very open process. It allows for the release of a discussion paper early in the fall, which is then debated at some length through a parliamentary committee to review basic assumptions and so on.
For us it brings about a different way of doing business as well. It means a different and strengthened relationship between the central agencies - Finance, Treasury Board, and PCO - so that we can coordinate and assist departments in achieving what is expected of them in the context of the next budget.
[Translation]
This has also resulted in changes in our organization. As you are no doubt aware, one of those changes was the special team that was set up in 1994-95 to direct the program review exercise under the leadership of Mr. Massé.
The role of the Clerk as head of the Public Service is still evolving. This is a role that was reflected in the legislation only a few years ago, and it is still changing. So, as an organization, we must ask ourselves what is the best way to fulfil that role. I would be pleased to revisit those issues, if you find it appropriate, in order to tell you how we go about this and how we try to do things.
Our program brought about significant cuts for an organization as small as ours, which is mainly focused on the use of its human resources.
[English]
If you're interested, we would be pleased to go back to any one of these questions, but let me first give you an example that you may find useful.
On our service side, excluding the administration program, every aspect of the activity has been affected. When we are through with the implementation of our review, it should lead to savings of about $4.3 million on the service side.
Now, if I look at the administrative side, which has the common services.... We provide common services to ministers' offices, the Prime Minister's Office, the Leader of the Senate, the Leader of the House, the minister in charge of public service renewal, and so on. Our common services will also generate savings, over the same period, of about $4.7 million. This is very significant over a short time.
All in all, we have tried to use program review to go back to basics and ask ourselves whether we can do better as a service organization in our relationship with the government, with cabinet, with other departments, and with central agencies. We have asked whether we can reorient our role in a way so that we can perform better and yet generate savings. The answer was yes to both questions. We could realign our role, we could focus and target our activities better, and at the same time we could generate what we consider to be significant savings.
Let me stop there, Mr. Chairman. This was just an add-on to the document you received to guide the discussion.
The Chairman: Maybe I wasn't hearing well. The total savings on both sides of the ledger then are.... Is it $4.3 million on the service side?
.1110
Ms Bourgon: Yes, and $4.789 million on the corporate common services side.
The Chairman: So that's $9 million.
Ms Bourgon: That's correct.
The Chairman: Good. That's all I needed to know. Thank you very much.
Now we turn to our first round of questioning. Today we have big hitters from the Bloc. I don't know what this means. Normally, we're not privileged to have Mr. Gauthier here but we do, and Mr. Duceppe as well. Something must be up or down or whatever. I'm sure the universe is unfolding as it should.
We have eight-minute rounds at the beginning, and we try to respect that time limitation as much as possible. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Ms Bourgon, I have examined the estimates for the Privy Council Office since 1990-91. The budget was $22.1 million in 1990-91; $36.3 million in 1991-92; $37.2 million in 1992-93 and $25.2 million in 1993-94. These numbers are taken from the Public Accounts. In 1994-95, we arrived at an estimate of roughly $31 million. Does $31 million for 1994-95 seem to reflect reality?
Ms Bourgon: Are you referring to a specific page in the documents that have been tabled with the committee, that is Part III or the Outlook document?
Mr. Gauthier: No. These are the Public Accounts. We have done some research, and I imagine that you know PCO's overall budget for the past few years. Do you have that information?
Ms Bourgon: Not exactly, sir. The document that we're discussing deals with the estimates for 1995-96.
If I refer to that document, I get the following figures for the Privy Council. Actual expenditures for 1993-94 amounted to $25.2 million whereas estimates for 1994-95 amount to $64.8 million. You will find that on page 7 of the Outlook document.
You will see $28.8 million under the estimates for 1995-96. That's on page 5 of the document. If you look at the plan for 1996-97, you'll see that the amount is $27.8 million and for 1997-98, it drops to $26 million. These numbers are just an overview which may make your task easier, sir.
The other document we're discussing is this one. If you look on page 7, under the column for the Privy council, you have a summary. Does that help you?
Mr. Gauthier: Yes.
Ms Bourgon: The numbers you quoted are not far off, but it's not exactly the same as I just read.
Mr. Gauthier: Are these the amounts that are on page 7 of your Outlook document?
Ms Bourgon: Yes.
Mr. Gauthier: So if I go by your numbers, for 1994-95 you have $64 million, including compensation to Quebec for the referendum, which amounted to $34 million.
Ms Bourgon: Yes.
Mr. Gauthier: That means that there's roughly $30 million to $30.5 million for the budget. Is that correct?
Ms Bourgon: That is correct.
Mr. Gauthier: The forecast for 1995-96 is roughly $28 million. If I have understood correctly, the budget for the Privy Council Office will be reduced this year. How do you explain this reduction?
For the years that preceded and followed the Charlottetown referendum, the Privy Council Office's budget substantially increased. On page 2 of your Outlook document, the last paragraph says, and I'm quoting:
.1115
In this respect, the government continues to be particularly conscious of its fundamental duty to preserve and strengthen national unity in 1995. The Privy Council Office will continue to provide support to meet this objective, including assistance to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Minister responsible for the Quebec referendum, and will allocate resources as appropriate.
How do you explain the effervescence that reigns in the Privy Council when there's a referendum? How do you manage to decrease the funds in 1995-96 given that your vowed objective is to strengthen the national unity and to use to this effect all the necessary resources?
Ms Bourgon: This is an excellent question and I'll try to answer it with the help of my colleagues, Mr. Pratt and Mr. Bilodeau.
The problem with Part III of the estimates is always the same and if you want my opinion, it is a cumbersome way of presenting the data.
For any year you have to add and to subtract. You have just recognized that going from $64.8 million to $28.8 million is a considerable drop, behind which there are one-time, non-recurrent expenses. But there are also others. There are items which were reduced and others which were increased.
Let me get to the core of your question, namely whether the Privy Council increased the expenses related to the federal-provincial relations and all the concurrent functions. The answer to this question is affirmative, in spite of the bottom line which seems to show certain trends, but if you break it down into its elements, particularly Mr. Massé's portfolio - we have with us the deputy minister of that department - several items of that portfolio have been increased.
This minister has been interested with a revision of the programs, supplementary estimates have been prepared and it was necessary to fund a special staff to that effect. These will be one-year funds, which will then be eliminated.
The minister has been requested to make a study of the federal and provincial overlappings and to that effect a team has been set up and funded as well as a small department which we'll allow him to discharge his responsibilities regarding the national unity and the specific circumstances surrounding a referendum in Quebec.
I want you to understand that although the total of the estimates is heading in a certain direction, your real question is: have you increased resources dedicated to those activities? The answer to which is yes.
Mr. Gauthier: To what extent the funds allocated to the referendum in Quebec have been increased? By what amount? I will then ask you a second question of a different nature.
[English]
The Chairman: There's no time for another question, Mr. Gauthier, because we're nearing the end. But do you want to throw in your next question right now?
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: All right, I will then ask the two questions.
First of all, by how much have the estimates been increased, taking into account the referendum in Quebec? Second, each year since 1991-92, the Privy Council Office has resorted to supplementary estimates to cover these activities. This year the $28 million will represent the core budget but with the coming referendum and the turmoil it will cause supplementary estimates can be expected. Since we are already well into the year, what is your estimate of that supplementary budget?
My last question, since I'm restricted by time, is the following one: What are our guarantees that the Privy Council Office, in view of the referendum in Quebec and after the referendum, would not incur exorbitant expenses and incorporate them in a supplementary budget in order to legalize, as it were, the whole operation?
Ms Bourgon: Let me first answer and then leave the floor to my colleague, Mr. Bilodeau.
I will let Mr. Bilodeau answer your first question because it requires a certain degree of precision in the management of his portfolio. It is always preferable for the person who knows the topic best to answer.
As to your second question, namely the use of supplementary estimates by the Privy Council, you are right: our institution has to cope with a certain amount of unexpected circumstances; it is in the nature of our job.
.1120
If, in three months, the government decided to stride a royal commission of inquiry, I don't have the means as a manager to finance it. It is not as if I was managing a unit where I could foresee and manage the needs of my clients on a continuous basis.
The Privy Council is a body that supports all of Cabinet, and the Prime Minister. We receive decisions and we have to act. Suppose that in three months the Prime Minister and his Cabinet decide to strike a royal commission of inquiry. We would prepare a Treasury Board submission to obtain supplementary estimates from Parliament. We would then obtain the necessary votes to accomplish this task.
Last year, when the government decided to undertake a program review in all departments, we prepared a Treasury Board submission that was transparent and that set out what we thought the cost would be. We set up a team and then we lose the funds. We never keep those funds. They are given to us temporarily for a public purpose and then they disappear.
Unfortunately, sir, I cannot assure you that PCO won't need more funds, given the nature of our activities and that we receive decisions. We have to ensure they are implemented.
What guarantees transparency in the parliamentary system?
[English]
It is known to the parliamentary system as a whole. I think the best guarantee that all of that is known, that the purpose is understood, is the parliamentary system we have.
Now, to answer the more precise question of what the exact amount is, we will turn to Mr. Bilodeau.
The Chairman: We're out of time for this round. Try to keep the answer as short as possible.
Mr. Ronald Bilodeau (Deputy Minister and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Intergovernmental Relations, Privy Council Office): It will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, to the best of our knowledge, $2.5 million have been set aside for Canadian unity in this year's budget.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Epp, are you prepared to take your turn? I noticed that you were late, but it's your turn. Go ahead, you have eight minutes.
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin by apologizing to you, to the committee, and to the witnesses for being late. I long for that day when there are 177 Reformers here so we don't all have to do three jobs and be at three places at the same time.
An hon. member: You won't have to worry about that.
Mr. Epp: We'll see.
I'd like to refer to page 7 of the estimates. One of the things that I'm intrigued with...and this is partly political, because I really wonder about the need for all of these different commissions of inquiry, task forces, and so on. I know some of them are necessary and useful, but I think a lot of them usurp a lot of the work that should be done by members of Parliament. That is, of course, not your purview. Your purview is the budgeting process.
Commissions of inquiry obviously always come up with a first-time estimate of the cost; then, as their work progresses, the costs escalate. It seems to be a bottomless pit. In other words, once a commission is struck, there are in fact no real restrictions on how far their expenditures can go, beyond spending so much that the public would really get upset about it.
Are there any restrictions, what is the actual process, and what can we expect in the future with respect to limiting a very substantial expenditure on these inquiries?
Ms Bourgon: Let me do the same thing I just did. I will start and then I'll ask Mr. Pratt to complement the question, mainly on the question of process, if you agree.
Let me first say that I agree philosophically with the key point you are making, which is that great care should precede the establishment of commissions of inquiry. It would be good advice to consider all other avenues, because once they are created - and you're right - they are created for the purpose of ensuring a high degree of independence. With that, you relinquish a certain degree of control. Therefore, once a commission of inquiry is created, to ensure and protect its high degree of independence, you don't control every aspect of its work and you don't control every penny it spends and how it is being spent.
.1125
We normally provide it with administrative and financial support, but that is not enough to achieve what you're describing. It would establish the budget it needs, and that budget would then be reflected through TB submission. If it goes with budget overrun, the real control of the government is to decide not to accept modification or requests for additional funds. As you would very well know, this is very difficult to do.
Let's assume that a commission has been created, that it is 70% of the way, and that it is saying all the work is going to be lost unless it gets a few million more dollars. Government is always inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. That is no guarantee that the commission may not face another cost overrun and come back.
Your point is well taken. Because of the concern of providing maximum independence to a commission, a degree of daily, very tight control is relinquished.
Still, there is a process I'd like Mr. Pratt to describe. It is how we assist them in having efficient internal controls.
Mr. William Pratt (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Privy Council Office): Commissioners appointed under the Inquiries Act are given specific terms of reference, which are set out in the appointing Order in Council. It's normal practice for each group of commissioners, following their appointments, to proceed with the development of a work plan they would deem reasonable and necessary to carry out those particular terms of reference.
The work plan is then costed by the staff at the commission. Those costings are put into a budget that is then presented to the government or forwarded to Treasury Board for approval. It is basically the same process followed by each department of government to obtain funding. Of course, that budget as presented is considered by Treasury Board. Ultimately, Treasury Board approves the budget and funding is normally provided through the parliamentary estimates process.
The commissions operate pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, subject to basically the same controls as departments of government. Within the process, there have been examples of certain commissions, because of unforeseen circumstances, finding it necessary to come back to the government to seek additional funding. More often than that, what you have probably seen is a commission coming back for the reprofiling of resources between fiscal or among fiscal years, because of slippage in their work plans.
There have been commissions that have very definitely sought additional funding after the original budget was approved. Equally, there have been several that have reported, in the end, at an amount that was consistent with the original budget.
Mr. Epp: Ms Bourgon, would you say that the area of commissions of inquiry is the most jelly-like element of your budgeting process? Is that the one you have the most difficulty nailing down? Isn't it just a guess each year?
Ms Bourgon: This is one that, as a manager, I'm not managing.
Mr. Epp: Yes. It's in your estimates....
Ms Bourgon: It is not one related to the way I use every employee, the procurement activities we have, and so on. We are the centre of responsibility in reporting and...these activities, because they need some basic support.
Mr. Epp: I'd like to go next to administration. Your forecast for this year is $5 million over, which is in the neighbourhood of 4%. I don't know if that's excessive or not. We're talking administration, on page 7.
Your estimates this year are basically the same as last year. To what do you attribute this? How surprised should I be if next year the forecast is actually $23,741,000? Administration says we're going to spend so much, and they always overspend by 4% or 5%. Is this a realistic number for your administrative costs?
.1130
Ms Bourgon: There's something of the same answer I gave to the first gentleman who asked the question about the overall as opposed to the components.
Whenever we are asked to undertake additional tasks, there is an increase in the administrative cost. Fundamentally, leaving the fluctuation aside, costs will go down quite substantially this year and over the next three years.
Let me quote to illustrate the point. The administrative division, which is common services to all of our five activities, will go down by $1,600,000. Financial services will go down by $50,000. Human resources will go down by $250,000. Information services will go down by slightly more than $700,000. Informatics will go down by $2,000,000. The total number is going down by quite a bit for new services provided for temporary activities, specific targeted activities, and the fundamental range of services we provide through program review.
Mr. Epp: But your prediction this year is the same as last year's and it hasn't been realized. Why should we think it's going to be realized this year?
The Chairman: Final comments.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? May I ask for a special point of privilege from the committee? Unfortunately, I'm going to have to leave, so I will give up my next turn because I won't be able to be here. Could I have the answer to this?
The Chairman: I'm certainly happy to do so, if there are no objections.
An hon. member: [Inaudible]
The Chairman: This is the first time he's asked, Eugene.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Epp: Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate it.
The Chairman: We'll give you a third....
Mr. Epp: Thank you.
Mr. Pratt: A number of changes take place from year to year, but specifically, and, I suppose, most important, in regard to the numbers displayed here, is the fact that up until the current fiscal year, translation services have been provided to government departments at no cost, albeit we were provided with envelopes that restricted the use of translation on the basis of words that could be translated.
Beginning on April 1, 1995, the translation bureau was converted to a special operating agency. As a result, departments were required to include funding within their own budgets to pay for their translation costs. In the case of this department, approximately $2 million has been added. When that is added, it of course creates a bit of distortion when one is trying to specifically identify reductions. The reductions have occurred in the current year.
Mr. Epp: Did you anticipate that would happen?
Mr. Pratt: We had no....
Ms Bourgon: This is a decision in another department, which is a service centre. It applied to every department. I'm sure you saw that in the part III estimates of other departments. When the decision was made, it applied to every organization. We received our allocation, and it was then reflected.
Mr. Epp: My primary theme is that we have to bring spending down because our debt keeps burgeoning. I think it's a theme of all members of Parliament these days.
As managers of a not insignificant sum of money on behalf of the Canadian people, we are eagerly anticipating that your administrative projection of $23.7 million is going to be closer than what happened last year. We will be watching that with care.
If I may, I do want to come back to one specific question. I forgot to ask this before. That will end my intervention. With respect to the commission of inquiry on the blood system in Canada, it seems that was one of these really open-ended ones. I would like an update on that. I would like to be made aware of their budget constraints, if any, at this stage.
Ms Bourgon: I'm not up to speed on this question. Mr. Pratt might be.
Mr. Pratt: I believe the original budget proposed for the blood inquiry was $11.02 million.
That's the same budget that is currently in place, and our information from the commission is that the commission will complete its work within that particular budget. Also, the commission, which I believe was begun a year ago last September, expects to submit its final report to the government by the end of the current calendar year.
.1135
Mr. Epp: Okay, good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues. I will stay here for another 10 minutes to hear what goes on, and then I'll need to absent myself. Thank you.
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, Madam Bourgon, thanks for joining us today.
I think the key line in your Outlook document may be the one that says over the past 20 years the organizational structure of the PCO has remained relatively stable. It must have been difficult for whoever the authors were of this Outlook document to think of something new and interesting to put in the slim volume. I read through it very carefully, and I sense that most of the changes in the PCO came about as a result of what followed after the election, when the cabinet committee structure was changed, as opposed to program review making those fundamental changes.
I also notice that the number of full-time equivalents, if I read this correctly, is not expected to change an awful lot over the next few years from the actual 280 who were there in 1994 - by planning years 1997-98 you expect to be around 272.
I'm interested in how the PCO has adapted to what I assume to be a reduction in activity with cabinet committees. Even the elimination of P and P probably had a significant impact on resource requirements and how you've reallocated them. Admittedly you're talking about senior officers normally serving cabinet committees, and I'm just wondering what happened to those people.
Ms Bourgon: Would it be of interest to you if I described the kinds of cuts by grouping or units within the Privy Council Office?
Mr. Murray: Yes, it would to me.
Ms Bourgon: It's true that the basic structure of the PCO has not changed much over 20 years. A part of the organization also provides secretarial support to cabinet. You combine the groups and you divide them, depending on the structure of the cabinet committee, but you always have this stream in the organization.
We always have a group that deals with senior personnel. It was true for previous governments. It's true for this government. It was true 20 years ago. We have a stream dealing with machinery issues, the laws creating departments and all these wonderful questions. We have a federal-provincial part of our organization. The basic architecture is not changing. The way we do the work is changing. So your line is quite right.
Let me go back to program review. We found, for instance, that we had a group, a unit, dealing with the former support operations committee, which was eliminated by the streamlining of the cabinet system. It begged the question of whether we could combine staff in a manner that would generate savings and whether we could rethink our approach to the cabinet system around the economic committee, the social committee, the special committee of council, and the full cabinet. We did and found that in doing it we could save almost a million dollars. A million dollars is a lot of money.
You refer to P and P. The P and P committee was eliminated, but the planning function was not. In fact, if you need to enhance your capacity to plan and to look ahead...maybe by doing the work differently we could achieve better results. There again we found that it's a smaller group but that we could reduce activities related to communication, we could reduce activities to some type of clippings where the demand was not high enough. All in all, if you streamline your activities and eliminate some...we think over three years we will be able to find $850,000. That's an awful lot of money. It's also 14 or 15 positions, which for us is a lot. When you're managing a small organization, 15 person-years are a lot on your salary base.
Then we looked at security, intelligence, legislation, House planning, internal council, and so on. We did the same exercise. We did it everywhere. We found there too we could save up to $800,000.
.1140
Intergovernmental affairs expands when there's a need and contracts quickly. We anticipate that over a period of three years it will be possible to make a contribution, and we've earmarked these savings ahead of time. The basic architecture is not changing; the way of providing the services is. You're quite right, a lot of the savings on the program side are related to the reform of the cabinet system, the reform of the expenditure system, and the outcome of our own program review.
Mr. Murray: Again referring to the Outlook document, under ``Support for Government Decision-Making'', you mention that there's been a restoration to cabinet of its role as government's senior forum for decision-making, that you've increased the authority of cabinet committees, and that ministers are more responsible and accountable for their policy areas.
That suggests that PCO's influence has declined. Is it the place to be if you're in government now? Do the senior public servants want to move to the Privy Council Office? Or do you find that there is definitely a return to the departments for that kind of leadership?
Ms Bourgon: I hope both. I think we should be able to strengthen the authority and the flexibility provided to departments. At the same time, PCO should be the place to be, not because we are working on command and control but because we have value added in detecting trends, issues, doing forward planning, thinking, guiding policy work, and so on. It's a changing role. But it's a very exciting role, too. In a way there are the two things we're trying to achieve: a strengthening of the accountability of departments, and a strengthening of our own strategic capacity. That's not incompatible.
Mr. Murray: The Minister of Finance often speaks of the need to change the culture within the public service. I'm not sure how broadly we should define that change of culture. It's often looked at in terms of expenditures and accountability for expenditures. I sense, again from your document, that you work somewhat with Treasury Board and other departments. I'm not sure what the spill-over is.
But as we're going through this whole program review era in government and we're living through this period of low morale in the public service, which actually goes back five or ten years - it's been around for quite some time - I'm interested in whether PCO has a role to play in revitalizing, rejuvenating the public service, trying to address this morale problem, trying to address the problems of accountability. If you do that, how do you relate to, say, Treasury Board or other agencies?
Ms Bourgon: There are two points I'd like to pick on: the state of morale in the public service and how Treasury Board, Finance, and PCO work together.
On the first point, you're quite right. You can go back a long time. It is important to remember where you come from. You cannot assess the state of morale on that date. You have to keep a sense of history of the evolution of organizations like ours. We have been asking the public service to do more with less for 12 years now. We are asking the public service to be part of an effort to rethink and redefine the role of government and the range of services. It is exciting, but it is also very difficult, and it cannot be done without creating stress in the organization.
The 45,000 people the Minister of Finance talked about in his budget, when he was saying that this was the number of public servants who would be affected, are not numbers. They are colleagues, friends, and have families. We know them. They've been making a contribution for years; we're quite aware of that. It is not a judgment of their qualifications. Things they were doing are no longer what the country needs. We constantly have to align and realign. But let's not underestimate how much we are asking of our public servants. Yes, the state of morale is affected by all of that.
I would add that, in some cases, what affects the state of morale the most is not so much the difficulty of the task. Public servants are quite able to deal with reform and major changes, and they are proud of making a contribution in that regard.
.1145
Sometimes what does the most in terms of reinstating or rebuilding morale are things such as respect, pride in the institution, valuing of the role being played, and recognition of a job well done. When somebody does something well, there's nothing like giving a pat on the back and saying well done, as opposed to focusing only on the negative of the day. Morale needs to be improved and we all have a role to play in that regard.
Very honestly, in terms of the relationship between the central agencies I think there is a lot that needs to be done there. We're doing our very best right now.
Finance and Treasury Board need a much more seamless approach to the relationship with the department than the one we had. As they are putting in place the new expenditure system, it's even more necessary. We need to work with the two of them much more closely than ever before. We've created a coordinating committee with the heads of these three agencies to try to perform a bit better. A lot needs to be done.
The Chairman: Mr. Epp alluded earlier to what you might call the cost overruns of commissions of inquiry. I think I can appreciate how difficult it must be to estimate the costs of these inquiries. After all, who knows where research and study will lead a commission? Is it something like trying to estimate the costs of operating the criminal justice system in a given period? One cannot predict future events. Who knows when a very expensive investigation or a very expensive trial is required? Is it something like that?
Ms Bourgon: I'm sorry, I've missed something in your question.
The Chairman: I would assume it's very difficult to estimate the costs of running a criminal justice system.
Ms Bourgon: Yes, it is.
The Chairman: Is estimating the cost of commissions of inquiry similarly difficult?
Ms Bourgon: It's probably not as difficult, but it is very difficult. The estimate of the costs has to be done by the people assigned to that commission, because they are the closest to the issue, and they have to come up with a view. They will not necessarily know what they will encounter. They have to exercise all their professional prudence to make their estimates, and yet they may not have all the information with which to do so.
The Chairman: I guess I'm sensitive to it because of my journalistic background. There were times when news budgets just went out the window because of a particular event. You can't predict what's going to happen in the month of August or the month of September. If a spate of forest fires comes along, that can just blow a news budget so quickly if you have to hire helicopters or airplanes and whatever. That's what I'm trying to get at.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe (Laurier - Sainte-Marie): Madam, you say that our parliamentary institutions are trying to make it possible for us to control all these expenditures, which, in a sense, forces the government to be transparent.
Well then, for the sake of transparency, I look through this document for indications on the national unity activity or that national unity group or the task force on national unity. Call it as you will, I found nothing of the kind. I know that this group exists, that it has offices on Sparks Street and that it is somewhat shy of journalists.
I would like to know how much was included in this budget for the national unity activity in relation to the upcoming referendum. While you are at it, I would like to know how much the Privy Council Office spent last year and how much it plans to spend this year on surveys and publicity campaigns?
Ms Bourgon: We report on the basis of the statutory structure that we are given and that you'll find in the document under the titles: Office of the Prime Minister, Ministers' Offices, Privy Council Office, etc. So, we use our activities. We are ready to subdivide, but it is on the basis of this structure that we must prepare our statutory reports.
With your consent, I would ask Mr. Bilodeau to give you a breakdown of the activities he directs and, while he's doing that, I will check the amount of the Privy Council's internal costs for the item ``Communication and Survey''.
Mr. Bilodeau: We have provided to the committee - and we would be more than happy to provide it again - a list of the people who work for the Policy and Inter-governmental Affairs Group. There is no group or unit or branch as such with that title. However, there is a group of 60 people called the Policy and Inter-governmental Affairs Group where various people are more directly involved with issues related to Canadian unity.
.1150
As I mentioned earlier, its budget will be roughly $2.5 million for the upcoming year. This will essentially cover analysis and advice provided to the Prime Minister and ministers, interdepartmental co-ordination, communication activities - press releases, speeches, ministerial briefings - and analysis in general. These missions are consistent with the Privy Council's role.
Mr. Duceppe: $2.5 million has been budgeted for this year; what was last year's budget?
Mr. Bilodeau: It was roughly the same, sir. As you may recall, last year the Privy Council received an additional $6.3 million for the mission to be carried out by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Massé. That covered his mission: program review, government renewal and unity. A third of that, or roughly $2 million, went to unity.
Mr. Duceppe: Your numbers on page 7 show that for this year, the budget will be reduced by between $1 million and $2 million and, with respect to 1993-94, there is almost a $4 million increase. There were also significant increases prior to the Charlottetown referendum.
Can this year's decrease, but the actual increase with respect to 1993-94, be explained by the fact that the referendum will be held in the fall and not in the spring and that work has already been done and included in last year's budget?
Mr. Bilodeau: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman. Madam Bourgon indicated earlier that the Privy Council's mission varies according to the demands that are placed on it; sometimes it is necessary to reassign personnel based on these demands. I don't think that it's based on the time frame you mentioned, sir. Our mission to advise ministers, provide interdepartmental co-ordination and analysis were intensified.
Mr. Duceppe: Are you telling me there were no additional expenditures with respect to the Quebec referendum? Is that what you're telling me?
Mr. Bilodeau: No. I said that this year, the budget was roughly $2.5 million, that last year, the budget was roughly the same, and that it was part of an additional amount that was provided to PCO. If other needs arise later on, we may have to come back to the government. It was clearly an addition.
Ms Bourgon: May I come back to your question and add some other elements?
Mr. Duceppe: Yes.
Ms Bourgon: One aspect of your question is: Are there other expenditures in addition to what you have before you, in our books, which are linked to unity generally and which are in preparation for a possible increase in activity? My colleague has clearly answered that question.
Our books contain $2 million in expenditures linked to unity activities for last year and this year. Will we always have that budget? I have no idea. The governments will decide.
But allow me to take your question to another level. Could the Privy Council expect to receive or receive additional money if a referendum were announced tomorrow? First of all, the government will make that decision, but it is certainly possible and probable. If that were to happen, would parliamentarians be notified?
I imagine it would give rise to considerable debate in the House of Commons and that if the supplementary estimates were approved, it would not be a secret. It would have to be approved through a process that would require us to make a Treasury Board submission, obtain the necessary approvals and table supplementary estimates.
Mr. Duceppe: And what about surveys?
Ms Bourgon: While my colleague was answering that, I looked into another aspect. In 1994-95, which is the only data that I have here - if you want more information, we could look for it - we have no expenditures under ``surveys''. However, we have service agreements with the Department of Public Works and Government Services which is responsible for these issues. They carried out work at our request which amounted to $52,055.
[English]
The Chairman: I think if your budget for the preservation of the country is a little more than $2 million it's a small amount, and money well spent.
Mr. Duceppe: Yes, if it is only $2.5 million.
The Chairman: Well, we're talking about this budget.
.1155
Ms Bourgon, would you sum up how that money is spent in salaries, etc.? Just give me some sense of the nature of the expenditures.
Ms Bourgon: I think it's spent basically half and half between salaries and operating expenditures.
The Chairman: What do you mean by ``operating expenditures''?
Ms Bourgon: I mean buying paper and pens, giving out contracts and all other expenditures. It's basically half and half between the two. Of the $2.5 million talked about there seems to be $1.4 million on the salary side, and $1 million for the general operations budget.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): I have a couple of questions. Mr. Epp was actually commenting on commissions of inquiry and their cost overruns, which of course is of considerable concern.
Can you furnish audits of commissions of inquiry? Do you do so after these commissions of inquiry sit? Are they available to the public?
Ms Bourgon: Can I just pick one expression you used? I think in fairness to the commissions of inquiry we should differentiate between a cost overrun and a request for additional credits. The chair was alluding to a request for additional credits. A commission could run into unforeseen circumstances, turn back, make estimates and ask the government to please provide additional credits. A cost overrun is basically the result of not managing your affairs tightly enough so that you exceed your estimates without proper authorization. In most cases you're dealing with a request for additional credit.
To go back to your question about the audit, to my knowledge PC was not providing that kind of service, which does not exclude, for instance, using the services of the Auditor General or other groups. Let me confirm that to be sure.
Mr. Pratt: The accounts of commissions of inquiry are paid through the financial services office of the Privy Council. Those expenditures are approved and reviewed on the same basis as the expenditures of the department itself. Therefore, financial management must conform to the same rules and principles of a federal government department.
Aside from the fact that the budget itself is submitted to and approved by Treasury Board, expenditures are reported in public accounts and the financial records of a commission are audited in the same process as the financial records of the department are.
Normally we carry out internal audits of the financial management function roughly every three years. Occasionally the Treasury Board will request that special audits take place, and when those special audits take place they include all of our financial records and all of our books, which include the financial records of each commission of inquiry.
Mr. Bryden: Does the public have the right to see this information? There's the question of public accountability here. When a commission has overruns in the millions of dollars it's certainly in the interests of the members of Parliament and the public at large to know exactly how money was spent. It's not only a question of those commissions of inquiry that have overruns; it's also a question of commissions of inquiry in general. Can we see the books?
Mr. Pratt: The financial records of commissions are available to the public on the same basis as the financial records of departments. Requests are made from time to time. Requests can be made for financial records under access to information provisions, although financial records of commissions are as available under the provisions for access to information as those of departments are.
Mr. Bryden: On the subject of access to information, can you give me a sense of whether you're getting more requests or fewer requests? What have you forecast in terms of that area of the PCO?
Mr. Pratt: The number of requests we have been receiving has been fairly constant over the last two or three years. The number has always been high.
There has been no significant decrease.
.1200
Mr. Bryden: You don't break down the estimates in the category of security and intelligence. Do you see increased or decreased spending there? What's happening in that particular category?
Ms Bourgon: As I mentioned earlier, we cut everywhere. In that case, their share of the cuts was to generate savings or cuts up to $800,000.
Mr. Bryden: They're not taking the $800,000. They're taking a percentage of the $800,000 they already had.
Ms Bourgon: Their share was $800,000 in cuts over three years. The program review covers three fiscal years for achieving the target. I would not know about the percentage. We could supply that.
Mr. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Bellemare, you have five minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): Ms Bourgon, you are head of the Public Service. I had the pleasure of participating as an opposition MP to the proceedings on Bill C-26. I did not agree with that bill.
[English]
From that bill, you are now the head of the public service. At least, the public service responds to you.
The Auditor General made a survey of public servants. I believe his questionnaire was addressed to 329 public servants out of a possible 245,000. I think he targeted approximately four departments and agencies. The result, in my opinion, devalued the public servants. My personal view is that the Auditor General, in that particular exercise, did a disservice to the public service of Canada and the country in general. I don't find his report complete. If you're going to make a report on the ethics of the public service, I think it ought to be done with a larger survey in all departments.
As head of the public service, to whom the public service reports, you have to report, by law, to the Prime Minister once a year, who in turn reports to Parliament. Has this been done?
Ms Bourgon: No, not yet.
Mr. Bellemare: Why not?
Ms Bourgon: It's done on an annual basis. My year was completed at the end of March, early April -
Mr. Bellemare: That is not a very good answer. Excuse me, I don't want to be impolite in any way, but deputy ministers come and go and if they all said the same thing, we'd never get answers from them. They would all say that they had just been appointed.
Ms Bourgon: No, that's a fair point, but let me just complete the sentence. In the act, as you know, there is no date. There is one report on a yearly basis at any time during the year. There was no obligation to table in either December, January or February, which could have created a problem.
Mr. Bellemare: So is it coming?
Ms Bourgon: The report is under way and will be completed and tabled before the end of this session.
Mr. Bellemare: What are you going to do about that report, and would you request that the Auditor General do a proper survey of the ethics of the public service?
Finally, is it your responsibility to make sure that all public servants have the book or directives or whatever rules you have on ethics? On the one hand, I think it should be your responsibility to see that the information is given to all public servants.
On the other, I think it is also your responsibility to challenge the Auditor General on what I think is a flim-flam survey, which devalued our public service in the worst of times.
.1205
[Translation]
Ms Bourgon: Your question is very complex. First of all, I would like to make a correction so that we're all using the same terminology in our discussion because that will help us to take it further.
The Public Service and all its employees do not fall under me. In terms of accountability, Public Service employees comme under their deputy minister and their minister. The Public Service's employer is the Treasury Board. Under the act, I am the leader of the Public Service. There is a difference between the supervisor, the employer - the corporate vice-president - and the leader.
The Clerk is expected to develop a vision for the future and a sense of direction, to communicate and convey it, to share it with the ministers and deputy ministers, to demand results and to ensure that progress is made. The employer has other responsibilities. The supervisor, the deputy minister, must ensure compliance with all acts, policies and practices on a daily basis. We have to get that straight.
Having said that, the Auditor General's Office and his most recent report are subjects that we'll have to reflect on within the Public Service. We will have to discuss this among ourselves and with the Office of the Auditor General. Parliamentarians will certainly want to provide their points of view.
The Office of the Auditor General is an important institution for the Public Service. It helps us to push our cleanup of our practices to the limit. It helps us to review the facts and to assure us that when there is a way to improve, we're aware of it and capable of doing it.
It is important for a manager to be criticized, to be reminded of how to improve his or her management practices. There is no limit on the possible improvements, but at the same time, no one is perfect.
If we want the Auditor General to pressure all of our managers, whatever field they're in, to do better, the credibility of the institution the Auditor General represents is very important. The point you are raising is very complex in that subjects that are raised and reported are not linked to facts on which managers can act on a daily basis. Was a bad contract awarded? Was a bad hiring decision made? We can turn around and tell managers: ``Look, you made a bad decision and it was bad for the following reasons. Here's how you could improve in the future.''
It is dangerous to try to improve managers' work based more so on opinion, an overview of an opinion, a philosophical point of view, a dissertation or a theoretical approach. This is also important work, but traditionally, it has not been the focus of the Auditor General's work. The Auditor General has helped us more so with respect to our practices, our policies, our experience, our methods and our decisions. He has always driven us to do better. They're always positive and negative aspects to shifting from this type of approach to a more theoretical approach.
Mr. Desautels and his colleagues in the Public Service will have to discuss that. Is it useful for the Auditor General to push us farther in our practices? Are we serving the Public Service well by issuing considerations based on opinion rather than on a verification of the accuracy of the facts?
This is a very important role change. We need time to analyze it properly.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. We'll have to leave it at that, Mr. Bellemare.
Ms Bourgon, all parliamentarians have a lot of casework and much of the casework is pursued through offices of ministers. Very often, that processing is not done as quickly as we would like it to be done. Very often, the reply when we complain is that ministers' employees are run off their feet, that they don't have enough of a work force, and that they are overloaded with work.
.1210
In light of the downsizing of government and that type of thing, do you at PCO, or as Clerk of the Privy Council, take a measure of that? Are you aware that perhaps very often ministerial assistants are run off their feet, and that the service, whether it's to MPs or to the public at large, is not as swift as we would like it to be? If you do take a measure of it, what is the measure, and what would you do about it if you found it wanting?
Ms Bourgon: I can best do it in my own organization. We serve ministers too. We have a number of them, we have linkages, and obviously, we manage the interface between our organization and these ministers' offices. Each deputy minister has to do the same thing in his or her own organization. They have to manage the interface between the two to make sure they react quickly, they are supportive and responsive, etc. So it's not something I can assess across the system; it's something I can assess in my own organization.
I would argue, modestly, that our level of service is not bad, that the management of the interface is not bad, and that our responsiveness is not something I am ashamed of. I think the staff is working very well and very positively between appointed officials and political advisers and so on.
I also have a sense sometimes of this degree of workload in ministers' offices across the system, because I make a point of sitting down with ministers regularly to review priorities and so on. I am not responsible for their offices, and therefore unless they voluntarily share information with me, I would not be aware. This is a function that is exercised more by the Prime Minister's Office and his political adviser than by the Privy Council Office.
The Chairman: It's not uncommon to hear from ministers that their staffs are too small and that they could always do with a few more hands.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Let me go back to the unit working on national unity. I don't know its name, but I know it has a budget of $2.5 million and offices on Sparks Street.
Could we have an organizational chart of this unit? I mean reporting lines, names, salaries, titles and status of employees, whether they are contract or indeterminate staff, who they report to administratively and politically, whether it is the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs or the minister responsible for the referendum? Is it possible to get this information? In the affirmative, can you give me an answer now?
Mr. Bilodeau: As I was saying, the list has already been provided to the committee. I will be happy, sir, to put this information together for you again. As for salaries, it is understood that we are talking about ranges. This information is covered by the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act but we will provide it to you as soon as possible.
Mr. Duceppe: I have here a list and contracts, but I would like an organizational chart. I would rather have this or the lists you have already submitted than use the Access to Information Act. I would like to see the chart that would explain to me who this unit reports to administratively and politically. Is it the Minister for Government Affairs or the minister responsible for the referendum?
Ms Bourgon: The question is clear. I see no reason why we should not provide this information, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duceppe: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd (Durham): Mrs. Bourgon, I am looking at part of your funding for aboriginal people. For instance, on page 27 in the 1993-94 estimates, how is it possible that we estimated a cost of $1.8 million for the intervener participation program of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, but it cost us $5 million? Could you capsulize why that type of thing happens?
Mr. Pratt: The total forecasted cost of that commission was $50 million. There were provisions made out of that in 1993-94 for $1.8 million. Additional resources were required in that fiscal year, but still out of the total of the $50 million.
.1215
Mr. Shepherd: I guess I'm trying to understand the whole concept of government financing.
Is it not possible to cap that expenditure at some point? Is it not possible to define the program in such a way that we say this is the amount of money we're going to spend on it?
Ms Bourgon: I think part of what Mr. Pratt was mentioning is that it is a case where what you're describing is basically being done.
As I understand it, they had an initial budget of $50 million allocated to them. It covered a number of years, and therefore they may not know exactly in what year it's going to be spent. So they will ask for money to be moved back and forth according to needs.
But I understood in your reply, Mr. Pratt, that the money they asked for, the increase in that given year, was still within their envelope of $50 million. That's why I was warning we should not always consider that it's a cost overrun going beyond what was allocated for them.
Mr. Shepherd: This is a one-line item here, though, that describes the intervenor participation program. I presume that's part of the overall package. Is the overall package broken down into functions, of which this is a component part?
Mr. Pratt: The intervenor participation program is funded separately from the commission itself, which appears on the line just above that on the same page.
Mr. Shepherd: So it's all out of the same $50-million envelope.
Mr. Pratt: No, it's not. Initially, there had been an amount in the order of $8 million budgeted specifically for that program. As a matter of fact, the Honourable David Crombie was appointed by the commissioners to oversee the allocation of that funding.
Even though it was budgeted over a period of a couple of years, it wasn't disbursed as quickly as had been anticipated. Therefore, funding had to be re-profiled from the previous fiscal year. As a result of that, instead of spending the $1.8 million that had been initially budgeted for 1993-94, it turned out that the expenditure was higher, but still within the $8 million.
Mr. Shepherd: If I read this properly, there's another $3 million to go into this thing.
Mr. Pratt: No.
Mr. Shepherd: That $3 million was spent in some years prior to 1993-94. Is that correct?
Mr. Pratt: That's right.
Mr. Shepherd: Presumably, this program has now been terminated. Do you then go through an evaluation analysis of the effectiveness of the program and the effectiveness of the way money was spent in it?
Mr. Pratt: No, from neither an administrative nor audit point of view.
That money was distributed by the Honourable Mr. Crombie, under direction from the commissioners who were appointed pursuant to the Inquiries Act. It would be the responsibility of those commissioners to assess and to evaluate what the commission realized from the money that was allocated.
Mr. Shepherd: Looking at the whole concept of financial control within government, not only are the estimates part of that process, but after the program was completed, it would help us to get more information on how to do this more effectively in the future if we were to sit down and evaluate how we actually spent the money, and whether in fact it was spent efficiently. But we don't do that.
Ms Bourgon: We do not systematically evaluate or audit every commission when it is completed. There is, however, no limitation on the power of the Auditor General to evaluate and audit any organization, any activities or any service provided. Therefore, it is being caught by the general service, as opposed to PCO as a small unit doing this systematically. You're right.
Mr. Shepherd: But the Auditor General's budget is less than yours.
Ms Bourgon: He has one function.
Mr. Shepherd: All I'm saying is that, at least from the suggestions of the Auditor General, all departments go through some kind of program evaluation and provide that as evidence of the effectiveness of how they spent taxpayers' money.
Would the Privy Council Office consider this in the future?
.1220
Ms Bourgon: Let me explore that further.
The Chairman: I think we have only one more inquisitor, and again that will be the member from Carleton - Gloucester.
Mr. Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Bourgon, in the Public Service Employment Act, subsection 47.(1) talks about a report of the Clerk to the Privy Council, saying it ``shall'' be done once a year, during our fiscal year.
The law has been in effect since 1992. How many reports have been presented since 1992?
Ms Bourgon: There have been two. That will be the third.
Mr. Bellemare: Yours will be the third.
Ms Bourgon: That's correct.
Mr. Bellemare: Okay. What do you intend to do about the Auditor General's report - I've just cancelled some of my qualifications of the report - vis-à-vis the public service and the so-called ethics according to the hypothetical questions of the Auditor General to a minute number? What are you going to do about that?
[Translation]
Ms Bourgon: First, I will follow the advice that is sometimes offered to the minister you work for, that is sober second thought. I will take the time to think about it. Second, I will take the time to sit down and discuss it with him. Then, we'll see where it goes. This is a discussion that he and I need to have because of the importance of both his organization and the Public Service.
Before reaching conclusions, if I may, I will give it serious consideration and have an in-depth discussion with him and his team.
Mr. Bellemare: Thank you, Ms Bourgon.
[English]
The Chairman: If members have no more questions, I have one more. It has to do with the outlook you have provided for the next three years.
What sort of impact will the outlook have on your work? In other words, Canadians are going to be in a better position to peer into what you are projecting over the next 36 months. Perhaps that can involve some heavy politicking of one kind or another. How do you evaluate this work? Is it going to be ultimately beneficial? Will it sharpen up your operations? Give me an idea on that.
Ms Bourgon: Maybe I can give you an initial reaction and a wish at the same time.
It is the first year for everybody in terms of the experience of preparing and discussing an outlook. I think the outlook as an inside exercise could be useful, and will be increasingly so provided it is the tool through which you set a bit more the sense of general direction and priorities.
Second, it is useful to the extent that it allows us to get a reaction, and input and suggestions from parliamentarians looking in.
If we could move from the discussion of specific data, specific elements and so on, to a discussion of where we're going, where we're going to be in three years from now, and where do we want to drive the institution, this is an input that has tremendous value for us. The credibility of the outlook document will depend on civil servants working on it, the calibre of the exchange we get and the guidance we receive. So there is both the initial reaction and the wish.
The Chairman: Are you suggesting that we as politicians, or perhaps all Canadians, should focus more on the policy that is inherent in the outlook as opposed to only picking away at particular data?
Ms Bourgon: It depends on what you find useful. You see, in the movement from the traditional part III to the outlook, the traditional part III is heavily loaded with data. There is a time, a need and a place for discussion on data. It may not necessarily require the head of the organization. It could be done differently and at other levels. If there is a wish for a discussion on orientation, that can only be done by engaging in debates with heads of organizations. There could be a place for both, but it's not necessarily the same place and it's not necessarily the same people.
The Chairman: Thank you. I appreciate your coming and I hope we can see you again.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, you know I have an interest in Bill C-224. I wonder if it might be possible to set aside extra time during the week of May 29 to hear and to conclude hearings on Bill C-224 so that we can get to clause by clause as soon as possible.
.1225
As you realize, there is some urgency to get this back to the House as quickly as possible.
The Chairman: What did you want to take place on May 29?
Mr. Bryden: The week of May 29, I realize there's a fairly tight schedule with the regularly scheduled meetings. If we could possibly schedule extra meetings as necessary in the week of May 29, we could hear the final witnesses on Bill C-224 and move to clause by clause. I think you would find consensus among many of the members of this committee who would be happy to sit a couple of extra sessions as necessary just to clear this off our plates.
The Chairman: You're talking about the week of May 29. As you know, we have witnesses on June 1.
Mr. Bryden: I'm hoping we could possibly ask those witnesses if they could appear earlier. I think you'd find those witnesses would prefer to do so. I know you have them scheduled for June 3.
The Chairman: It's for June 1.
Mr. Bryden: I'm sorry.
I wonder if we can set aside extra time as necessary to finish Bill C-224. If you have witnesses coming June 1, I don't think we'll be able to conclude them in an extra meeting, even in the evening. Someone will be able to submit amendments to the bill, which will be studied by the committee as the whole committee does clause by clause.
The Chairman: By the week after break week, we will know the status of Bill C-82. That's going to have an impact on us. I think we would be in a position to have a steering committee meeting as soon as we get back. We'll know more then. Perhaps we can make some decisions at the steering committee level, or at least make recommendations to the full committee.
Mr. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Mr. Bellemare, you are next.
Mr. Bellemare: I was referring to the report from the Auditor General. Would it not be within the purview of this committee to look at that and invite the Auditor General to appear before the committee?
The Chairman: Yes. Do you care if it's done outside of the estimates? We have to have the estimates finished by May 30.
Mr. Bellemare: I suggest he appear in the fall.
The Chairman: Certainly. I suggest the clerk take note of that. We'll have it done. I assume it'll be done in the fall.
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Chairman, let me say as the vice-chair of the public accounts committee that it is the venue of the public accounts committee to review the Auditor General's report, of which that's a portion. I can't tell you what our schedule is....
Mr. Bellemare: That's your matter, and this is government operations committee.
Mr. Shepherd: I understand, but obviously we don't want two committees studying the same aspect of the Auditor General's report. My suggestion is that you would want to interface with the public accounts committee and see when we're when going to schedule that for review in the fall. Possibly you would like to attend that.
Mr. Bellemare: It's a possibility.
The Chairman: I suspect it wouldn't be necessary for the Auditor General to appear twice on the same issue, as long as you had an opportunity to confront him.
Mr. Bellemare, I suggest you speak to Mr. Shepherd or someone else from the public accounts committee. You can determine whether it's best to appear there or to pursue having the Auditor General come to this committee. Is that fair?
Mr. Bellemare: Yes.
Mrs. Chamberlain (Guelph - Wellington): Mr. Chairman, with due respect, I wanted to ask you about the documents dropped on the table today. This seems to happen from time to time.
.1230
I don't quite understand what we're to do with them when we get them in the middle of a meeting.
The Chairman: Which documents are you referring to?
Mrs. Chamberlain: I was given a whole bunch of documents when I was sitting here. I have several sheets of paper here. I can't read them when the meeting is going on. I'm looking at them in terms of waste. If we really aren't doing anything with them, I don't think we should waste the documents.
I say that most respectfully. What is the purpose?
The Chairman: There are about three different documents in front of me. One is the briefing notes from our researcher. You should have had that in your office at least by yesterday, if not the day before. Those briefing notes are designed to help you formulate questions. They are simply a guide or a suggested list of questions. The blue book from the Privy Council is the 1995-96 estimates. They've been available since the end of February or early March. They just happen to be on your desk today, but you've had access to them for two and a half months. The other document is the outlook document. We've had access to that for about ten days. The documents on your desk today are there to assist you, but most of them have been available to you for some time.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I'm making my point about waste.
The Chairman: Do you mean a waste of paper, or a waste of time, or what?
Mrs. Chamberlain: I mean a waste of paper, but maybe it isn't. I was asking because I can't read through documents when I'm sitting here. Maybe other people can.
The Chairman: You've had two and a half months to read this one. You could have brought your own copy, but I guess the committee feels that just in case you didn't bring your own, a copy is here for you.
Mrs. Chamberlain: That's fine. I'll leave it so that they can reuse it.
The Chairman: Sure. But you can be almost certain that if the committee didn't provide this material, somebody would be asking for it.
Mrs. Chamberlain: It seems to me we have a lot of paper here. I worry a little about that. That's all.
The Chairman: That is a legitimate concern.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.